Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Thal Development Authority vs Khalas Khan Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 834 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
• Talib Ali vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and 2 Others vs Alam Sher and Another1979 P Cr. L J 997 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-01Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs Nur Hussain and Another1979 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain and Another vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Its Chairman1979 CLC 502 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Nawab, Shah vs Mst. Majeedah Khatoon and Other1979 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah and Another vs Superintendent, Central1979 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah Bokhari vs The State and Another1979 PLD Lahore 668 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Murtaza vs Rehiman and 5 Other1979 PLD Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Mukhtar Hussain and 2 Othbrss vs Punjab Labour Appellate1979 PLD Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14
  show-cause noticeservice of noticeindustrial disputedismissal from serviceex-parte inquiryevading servicemisconductlabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside an ex-parte inquiry and dismissal of three employees (petitioners) of Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd., directing a fresh inquiry while holding the initial postal service of notices insufficient because the employees were evading arrest. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that if service of notices for the second inquiry was invalid due to postal non-service, the initial show-cause notices sent via the same postal medium should also be declared invalid, effectively barring any disciplinary proceedings against them. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the employer had complied with the requirements of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance by sending notices to the correct postal addresses and publishing them in a newspaper while the petitioners were deliberately evading service. The Court established that an employer fulfills the legal requirement of informing a workman of alleged misconduct by sending a written notice through post to the last known address or via the press when the employee is intentionally unavailable, thereby preventing workers from exploiting their own evasion to defeat lawful disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of a show-cause notice through post and press is legally sufficient when the employee is deliberately avoiding arrest and whereabouts are unknown?
  • Can an employee utilize their own evasion of service to invalidate disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notices issued by the employer?
  • Does an employer comply with Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance by sending notice to the workman's last known address or publishing it in a newspaper?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Ahmad Shah vs The Pakistan and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26
  Letters Patent Appealres judicatawrit jurisdictiondismissal in limineevacuee propertycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a declaration of ownership over an evacuee house and challenging its transfer to the respondents. The appellant had previously challenged the rejection of his transfer application through a writ petition in the High Court and a subsequent petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed on the merits. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court operated as res judicata. The High Court of Lahore held that even if Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms, the general principles of res judicata bar a party from re-agitating a matter in a civil court that has already been decided on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, including in writ jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that a pronouncement on the merits by the Supreme Court operates as res judicata even if made while disposing of a matter in limine without summoning the opposite party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the general principles of res judicata apply to bar a civil suit when the same matter was previously decided on the merits in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does a decision of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition in limine on the merits operate as res judicata in subsequent civil proceedings?
  • Can a subordinate civil court review or bypass a lawful order passed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the previous order was passed in writ jurisdiction rather than a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohrab Khan vs Abdul Jalil and 2 Others1979 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Dastgir vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary1979 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Hafizurrahim and 12 Others vs Shafiq Ahmad1979 CLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Haque vs Syed Muhammad Anwar1979 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-01
  ex parte decreespecific performancesubstituted serviceservice of summonsLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972revisional jurisdictionlimitationknowledge of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance where an ex parte decree was initially granted, then set aside by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the defendant had been duly served and, if not, whether the ex parte decree could be sustained under the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity by ignoring evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the suit and the hearing date. The Court found that the defendant possessed actual knowledge of the litigation, rendering any procedural irregularities in service immaterial under the proviso added by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that where a defendant has sufficient knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside merely on grounds of procedural irregularity in the service of summons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude setting aside an ex parte decree if the defendant had knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing despite service irregularities?
  • Is the date fixed for framing issues considered a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court in revision set aside an order of a trial court that failed to consider material evidence regarding the defendant's knowledge of the suit?
  • Does the publication of a summons in a newspaper constitute a valid mode of service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Begum vs Gulzar Begum Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shalimar (Pakistan) Ltd., Lyallpur(F a Isalabad) vs Pakistan1979 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Additional District Judge. Sheikh Upura and Another1979 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Alias Tikka vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Latif1979 PLD Lahore 379 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Arif vs Rawalpindi Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi1979 CLC 483 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Manzoor Hussain vs Mir Muhammad Mudassir and Another1979 PLD Lahore 745 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-08Read full judgment →
• Sh. Manzoor Hussain vs Mir Muhammad Mudassir and Anothbr1979 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-08Read full judgment →
• Sh. Hafeezurrehman and 3 Others vs DR. Shafiq Ahmad and 2 Others1979 CLC 28 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Azmatullah vs Military Estate Officer, Lahore Circle, Lahore Cantt.1979 PLD Lahore 911 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Rehman and 2 Others vs Mohammad Bakhsh and 4 Others1979 CLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Ghaffar vs Qateel Shafai and Another1979 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• Separas Khan vs Sh. Abdul Khaliq and 9 Other1979 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs Mst. Sakina and Another1979 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Barkat Ali and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul.Ghafoor Khan and 3 Other vs The Federal Land1979 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02
  Land Reforms Regulationejusdem generisbona fide transactionconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationalienation of landFederal Land Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Federal Land Commission which declared a sale mutation of land by a declarant in favor of his minor sons void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Commission had interpreted the phrase "gift or otherwise" in the second proviso to clause (b) of paragraph 7 of the Regulation using the ejusdem generis principle to restrict the scope of valid transfers. The core legal question was whether the term "otherwise" in the proviso should be construed narrowly or broadly, and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to review such transfers. The Court held that the principle of ejusdem generis was inapplicable due to the absence of a specific genus and the context of the provision. It ruled that "otherwise" should be interpreted broadly to include sales, thereby exempting transfers to heirs from the retrospective nullification provisions of the Regulation. Consequently, the Court found the Commission's order invalid, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of such bona fide transfers to heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'gift or otherwise' in the second proviso to clause (b) of paragraph 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, require a restricted interpretation under the principle of ejusdem generis?
  • Does the Federal Land Commission have the jurisdiction to review the merits of a land transfer made in favor of heirs under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Is a sale of land by a declarant to his minor sons considered a valid transfer under the exemptions provided in the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Salima Bibi vs Sharif Hussain1979 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
• Sabahuddin Alias Chhabi vs Thestate1979 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• S. Farzand Ali Shah vs Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and Another1979 PLC 433 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
• Rifaqat Ali vs Muhammad Bashir Qureshi1979 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-12Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The District Magistrate, Faisalabad and 2 Others--1979 P Cr. L J 562 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
• Rasab and 8 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 615 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
• Rana Taleh Muhammad Khan and Another vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura and 12 Other1979 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 454 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
• Rana Irshad Armed Khan vs Abdur Rahim and Others1979 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• Rai Jalal Khan Etc vs Divisional Canal Officer Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 828 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Wahid Bakhsh1979 PLD Lahore 544 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-24
  pre-emptionowner of the estateagricultural landresidential constructionsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit decreed in favor of the respondent, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and owner of the estate. The appellant challenged this on two grounds: first, that the land was purchased for constructing a residential house, which allegedly barred pre-emption; and second, that the appellant was also an owner of the estate by virtue of a prior land purchase. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, an owner of an estate has the right to pre-empt the sale of agricultural land within that estate regardless of whether the buyer intends to use it for residential purposes. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that because the appellant had constructed a house (including a courtyard) on his previously purchased land, he ceased to be an 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes, as the land was no longer agricultural.

  Questions settled

  • Does a buyer's intention to construct a residential house on agricultural land bar a pre-emptor's right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does an individual retain the status of an 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes if they construct a house and courtyard on their previously purchased land within that estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan and Others vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
• Qamar vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 436 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-25Read full judgment →
• Qamar Saeed Mirza vs District Magistrate, Multan and Others1979 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
• Qaimey Alias Bhola vs The Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security Non- Gazetted Staff Union, Lyallpur vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and Another1979 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab and Another vs Malik Falak Sher Awan1979 CLC 421 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
• Prof. A. Hameed Kausar vs The State Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-24
  inherent jurisdictionpublic nuisanceconditional orderrevisional jurisdictionSection 561-A CrPCSection 133 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge that dismissed a revision petition regarding proceedings initiated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to make a conditional order against the respondent's workshop absolute, arguing that the respondent's written statement constituted an admission of the nuisance and a waiver of the right to show cause. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A when a revision had already been decided by the Sessions Court, and whether the respondent's compliance with a conditional order precluded him from showing cause. The Court held that Section 561-A cannot be used as an alternative or additional jurisdiction where other remedies have been exhausted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that complying with a conditional order does not prevent a party from showing cause, as these actions are not mutually exclusive. The petition was dismissed in limine, emphasizing that inherent powers are reserved for the interest of justice where no other procedure exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a revision petition has already been decided by the Sessions Court?
  • Does compliance with a conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude a respondent from showing cause against the order?
  • Is the jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available as an alternative or additional remedy where other statutory procedures have been exhausted?
  Read full judgment →
• Princess Aiysha Yasmien Abbasi vs Maqbool Hussain Qureshi and 21979 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19
  Muslim Family Laws Ordinancedissolution of marriagekhulamubaraatarbitration councilnotice of talaqconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Chairman of the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which had held that a mutual agreement between spouses to dissolve their marriage did not constitute a valid notice of talaq under section 7 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a joint communication of a dissolution of marriage by mutual consent (Khula or Mubaraat) submitted to the Chairman qualifies as a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Lahore High Court held that the joint written agreement of dissolution sent to the Chairman served as a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7, applying mutatis mutandis. The Court ruled that while proceedings before the Arbitration Council under section 7 remain necessary for a dissolution other than talaq, the Chairman's refusal to treat the mutual agreement as a valid notice was erroneous and without lawful authority, and the dissolution became effective upon the expiry of the 90-day period.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint written agreement between spouses to dissolve their marriage constitute a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Are proceedings before the Arbitration Council necessary when a marriage is dissolved otherwise than by talaq?
  • When does a dissolution of marriage by mutual consent become effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Prfessor Alaud Din Akhtar, Chairman, Punjab Textbook Board vs Government of the Punjab through the CHNF1979 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-17
  statutory tenureofficiating appointmentdeputationjudicial reviewservice lawconstitutional petitionpublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the government's order repatriating the petitioner from the statutory post of Chairman, Punjab Textbook Board, before the expiry of his three-year tenure. The core legal question was whether the government could curtail a fixed statutory tenure by labeling an appointment as 'officiating' or 'on deputation' when the appointment was made to a regular vacancy. The Court held that the post of Chairman is a statutory office with a fixed tenure under the Punjab Ordinance XLI of 1962, which cannot be interrupted by administrative labels. The Court ruled that the terms 'officiating' and 'deputation' used in the appointment letter were mere surplusage that could not override the legislative intent. Consequently, the repatriation order was declared to be without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that in statutory appointments, courts must prioritize the substance of the appointment over the terminology used in the notification, and a fixed statutory tenure cannot be curtailed by the appointing authority unless the governing statute explicitly authorizes such action.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government curtail a fixed statutory tenure by designating an appointment as 'officiating' or 'on deputation'?
  • Does the use of the term 'officiating' in an appointment letter automatically render a statutory appointment temporary?
  • Does the acceptance of a second incompatible office operate to vacate the first office held?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Alias Billoo and Another vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
• Peco Head Office Staff Union vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore1979 PLD Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02
  collective bargaining agenttrade unionsecret ballotreferendumindustrial relationsregistrar of trade unions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Unions appointing a rival trade union as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) without holding a secret ballot under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could bypass holding a referendum and declare a union as CBA merely because another contesting union defaulted in supplying its list of members within the stipulated time. The High Court held that once a registered trade union expresses its desire to contest the secret ballot, the Registrar is legally bound to hold a referendum, and failure to supply a membership list does not empower the Registrar to strike off a union's candidature or dispense with the secret ballot. The court ruled that the power to declare a CBA without a secret ballot applies only when no other union expresses a desire to contest. The impugned order was quashed and the Registrar was directed to conduct a referendum.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Unions appoint a Collective Bargaining Agent without holding a secret ballot when multiple registered trade unions have expressed a desire to contest?
  • Does the failure of a contesting trade union to supply its list of members within the time allowed authorize the Registrar to strike off its candidature?
  • Under what circumstances can the Registrar declare a trade union as a Collective Bargaining Agent without conducting a poll?
  Read full judgment →
• Pathana vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Vice-Chairman, Railway, Lahore and Another vs Abdul Hayee1979 PLD Lahore 617 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Chairman, Punjab1979 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10
  workman definitionlegislation by referenceright of appealgrievance petitionreinstatementconstitutional jurisdictionindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenges the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating an officer in Group VII of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) whose post was abolished. The Labour Court had dismissed the officer's petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, holding that he was not a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Tribunal reversed this on appeal. The High Court examined the nature of the officer's duties involving tact, initiative, and high-level representation, holding that he performed neither manual nor clerical work as his main functions, and thus was not a workman under Standing Order 2(i). Furthermore, the High Court held that adoption of Section 25-A by reference in Standing Order 12(3) did not automatically incorporate the right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Ordinance 1969. Consequently, the High Court declared the Tribunal's appellate order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee performing duties requiring initiative, drive, and personal contact rather than manual or clerical work is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 by reference into Standing Order 12(3) automatically confer a right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication where a statute adopts procedural provisions of another enactment without express words granting an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Noora vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 145 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and Another vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ali vs Mst. Khurshid Akhtar1979 CLC 388 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Summary Military Court No. 2 and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Siddique1979 PLD Lahore 707 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
• Natha vs Sh. Muhammad Amin and Another1979 CLC 532 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Naimat Alias Chacha Katta vs Another1979 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-26
  obscene literaturejudicial reviewsearch and seizurerecovery witnessSummary Military Courtprocedural irregularitystandard of obscenity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by a Summary Military Court for the possession of obscene literature under Section 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969. The core legal questions were whether the convictions could be sustained in the absence of the alleged obscene material on the record and whether the procedural requirements for search, seizure, and investigation were satisfied. The Court held that the convictions were illegal and set them aside. The ratio decidendi is that a conviction under Section 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires the Court to independently determine obscenity based on the material itself, which must be produced as evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that failure to produce the alleged obscene material, combined with the deliberate violation of procedural safeguards—specifically the failure to secure public witnesses for searches under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the lack of valid search warrants under Sections 96 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—renders the convictions unsustainable and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for possession of obscene literature be sustained if the alleged material is not produced in court?
  • Is the opinion of witnesses sufficient to establish obscenity, or must the court independently determine it?
  • Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a search and seizure violate the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are searches and seizures conducted without warrants from a competent court legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ud Din Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 389 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Abbas Naqvi and 10 Other vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Ahd1979 PLC 355 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain Shah vs The State Though Punjab Local Councils1979 PLD Lahore 919 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muntizima Committee Masjid Syedan,Rawalpindi and 2 Others vs Syed1979 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 71 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
• Munna Wwar Hussain and Another vs Rehmat Ali1979 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
• Munawar vs Razia Begum and 9 OtherP L D1979 Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Khan vs Najam Abbas and 7 Other1979 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Sultana vs Tasadaq (Tasadaq Hussain)PLD 1979 Lahore 34(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02
  transfer of family suitrestitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriageconsolidation of suitsbalance of conveniencefamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking the transfer of a family suit. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and consolidation of cross-suits—specifically, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a suit for dissolution of marriage—pending in different cities. The Lahore High Court held that it is in the interest of justice and balance of convenience to have both related matrimonial suits tried together in one court. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer of the respondent's suit from the Family Court at Bahawalpur to the Family Court at Multan where the petitioner's suit was pending. The key principle laid down is that where cross-suits regarding matrimonial disputes are instituted between the same parties in different courts, the balance of convenience dictates their consolidation and trial in a single court to avoid conflicting decisions and hardship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether two related suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage pending in different courts can be consolidated in one court?
  • Does the balance of convenience serve as a ground for transferring a family suit from one city to another?
  • Can a suit pending before a Family Court at Bahawalpur be transferred to a Family Court at Multan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamniad Riaz vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-21
  criminal procedureLaw Reforms Ordinancevitiation of trialmode of trialfailure of justiceabductionrapecorroboration of evidenceSection 537 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves criminal appeals against convictions for abduction and rape. The primary legal question was whether the trial proceedings were vitiated because the Magistrate recorded evidence under the old warrant-case procedure and subsequently concluded the trial under the new procedure introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, without framing a formal charge until after some evidence was recorded. The Court held that the proceedings were not vitiated. It determined that evidence validly recorded under the prior procedure remains admissible, and the failure to frame a charge earlier constituted a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the appellants consented to the use of the previously recorded evidence and suffered no failure of justice. The Court established that in procedural matters, what is not expressly prohibited is impliedly permitted, and that procedural irregularities do not warrant reversal unless they result in a failure of justice. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, though sentences were reduced due to the significant delay in the trial process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transition from the old warrant-case procedure to the new procedure under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, automatically invalidate evidence recorded before the formal framing of a charge?
  • Can a trial Magistrate rely on evidence recorded under the old procedure when the trial is concluded under the new procedure?
  • Does an irregularity in the mode of trial, such as the timing of framing a charge, necessarily result in the vitiation of the entire proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a sentence be reduced due to the delay in the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Sultan Khan and 4 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. LJ 213 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf Etc. vs Board of Revenue Erc.1979 CLC 284 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Faizuddin and Another1979 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and Another vs Mst. Rashida Zohra1979 CLC 444 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 3 Otheltss vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Tahir vs Superintendent, District Jail, Gujranwala1979 PLD Lahore 46 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Alias Mahnu Etc. vs Muhammad Ismail and Another1979 P Cr. L J 428 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore1979 PLC 377 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-23
  industrial relationstermination of servicegrievance procedurelimitation periodlabour court jurisdictionstatutory interpretationworkman
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that workers aggrieved by termination of service are restricted to the remedy under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and cannot avail the grievance procedure under Section 25-A(1)-(4). The core legal question is whether the remedy under Section 25-A(6) is exclusive or merely an additional, optional remedy for workers. The Court held that the provisions of Section 25-A(1)-(4) and Section 25-A(6) are not mutually exclusive. The term 'notwithstanding' in subsection (6) does not repeal or set aside the pre-existing rights under subsections (1)-(4) but rather provides an alternative, direct route to the Labour Court. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to supplement, not restrict, workers' rights, and the use of the word 'may' in subsection (6) grants workers the discretion to choose between the domestic grievance procedure or direct recourse to the Labour Court. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, and the cases were remanded for fresh decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is the remedy provided under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 exclusive for workers aggrieved by termination of service?
  • Can a worker choose to follow the grievance procedure under Section 25-A(1) to (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 instead of filing a direct petition under Section 25-A(6)?
  • Does the use of the word 'notwithstanding' in Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 repeal the rights provided in subsections (1) to (4) of the same section?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tafiq Alias Tari vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Shaft and 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 730 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Ems vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 185 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs Allah Ditta1979 CLC 82 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Haji Karim Bakhsh1979 CLC 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 885 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Manzoor Ahmad 7 Other1979 PLD Lahore 620 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 4 Other vs Tim State. PLD 1979 Lahore 809 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division, Multanand Another1979 CLC 85 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →